Thread: Twinkie for your thoughts

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

And where does the ultimate responsibility land in everything you describe? It trickles all the way back to the top to the CEO. Not sure about the U.S. but in Canada it's called due dilligence and in the end the head of the company himself, not just the company, can be fined and even do jail time for such negligence should it be proven.

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

NOPE! No - no - no... shareholders are VERY rarely held responsible... if ever.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

Share holders are not directly responsible for what goes on in the company